Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.

LOL. Only in your universe is "very low-income people" excluded from the category of "low-income." So basically "very smart" people is not considered "smart" in your world.

But of course when the Danville residents complain about the public housing, they are complaining most specifically about these group of people who you've been working so hard to pretend doesn't exist.

When it comes to who qualifies for what type of affordable housing YES, "very low-income" are excluded from "low-income". You read about the different classifications so why are you pretending they are all the same?

Again, how is someone who doesn't make at least 51% of the median income suppose to QUALIFY and pay rent on a "low-income" unit?

You keep focusing on just "very low-income" when that article isn't even about that segement of the population!

A lot of this comes down to San Francisco Housing Authority making a lot of its public housing units unavailable; a lot of people moving into the Danville complex will more than likely work in the City. If all of SF's existing units were available there'd be little need for new developments in the outer suburbia.

That is not true at all. There are a lot of people out here who don't work or have ever lived in SF that qualify and need this type of housing. You don't think there are low-income people out in the suburbs that can't afford housing here honestly? This area has enough people struggling to make it w/o SF sending anymore people. What exactly are you basing this on anyways?

It's the Bay Area, nearly every corner of this region has an issue with housing affordability for the majority of the population.

That is not true at all. There are a lot of people out here who don't work or have ever lived in SF that qualify and need this type of housing. You don't think there are low-income people out in the suburbs that can't afford housing here honestly? This area has enough people struggling to make it w/o SF sending anymore people. What exactly are you basing this on anyways?

It's the Bay Area, nearly every corner of this region has an issue with housing affordability for the majority of the population.

What are you even talking about? I said that demand for public housing in the suburbs would be lower if all of the existing public housing in SF was actually available.

What are you even talking about? I said that demand for public housing in the suburbs would be lower if all of the existing public housing in SF was actually available.

You said there would be "little need" for new developments for this type of affordable housing if SF had more units available which is not true. Lots of people out here need help with housing regardless of the situation in SF with it's public housing.

You said there would be "little need" for new developments for this type of affordable housing if SF had more units available which is not true. Lots of people out here need help with housing regardless of the situation in SF with it's public housing.

Lots of people in Danville need low income housing? It's one of the wealthiest suburbs in the Bay Area. 85% of the city is homeowners... doesn't sound like there's much of a need there.

Lots of people in Danville need low income housing? It's one of the wealthiest suburbs in the Bay Area. 85% of the city is homeowners... doesn't sound like there's much of a need there.

Aside from straying away from your original statement yes a lot of people in the AREA do need more affordable housing. You mentioned outer suburbia and I've been talking about the area the entire time so I'm not sure why you are just focusing on just current residents within the town limits of Danville all of a suddden.

I've already stated I don't think affordable housing should only be concentrated in urban cities and middle-to-lower class suburbs like Concord, Pittsburg, Antioch, etc.. and neither does ABAG.

I've already stated I don't think affordable housing should only be concentrated in urban cities and middle-to-lower class suburbs like Concord, Pittsburg, Antioch, etc.. and neither does ABAG.

Why not? It should be concentrated where land is cheaper, not forced into expensive land place via subsidies and whatnot. That's false manipulation of prices and that never works. Most cities will focus on what their citizens need, senior housing, assisted living, things like that and may choose to subsidize to "take care of their own" but when this isn't the same thing. This is the state or county telling cities they have to house "the areas" poor, not "their" poor, and for no real good reason I can think of except to allow people who can't afford to live somewhere to live there, which makes no sense.

Well they tried that between the 1950's and 1970's and it didn't work out too well. I suppose "out of sight, out of mind" for some people but that model of concentrating poverty and low-income people is a failure.

Aside from straying away from your original statement yes a lot of people in the AREA do need more affordable housing. You mentioned outer suburbia and I've been talking about the area the entire time so I'm not sure why you are just focusing on just current residents within the town limits of Danville all of a suddden.

I've already stated I don't think affordable housing should only be concentrated in urban cities and middle-to-lower class suburbs like Concord, Pittsburg, Antioch, etc.. and neither does ABAG.

That's a valid POV that I agree with in part... ultimately though I think public housing should be built where the job centers are. Higher income people can afford to commute, low income people shouldn't be spending a significant percentage of their income on getting to and from work.

Well they tried that between the 1950's and 1970's and it didn't work out too well. I suppose "out of sight, out of mind" for some people but that model of concentrating poverty and low-income people is a failure.

The places you mentioned are certainly not "out of site", it's what you do when you can't afford to buy property in another place right? I know I did it when I was renting in a pricy area with roommates but wanted to buy a house of my own, then years later when I COULD AFFORD to I moved up to a pricier area.

Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.